How would the earliest versions of M1 Abrams compare to newest

>>34900711
Get shit on royally.

If they didn't require any upgrades, the government wouldn't channel millions into the refits twice over.

>>34900711
T72A shits on M1 105mm
T72B shits on M1A1
T72B4/T90A shits on M1A2

>>34900762
go back to bed ivan

>>34900736
>Implying they dont do it just for the pleasure of the MIC

>>34900762
>shitposting this hard

lol y tho?

>>34900762
explain this, vatnik.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

File: 1474413578098.png (5KB, 258x195px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 258x195px

>>34900762

Probably still win because US tank crews tend to be better trained and that's the deciding factor in most engagements.

Inferior gun, no hunter killer ability, inferior armour, inferior CBRN suite

So yeah, in an ideal case for the T-90+++ it simply reks the abrams with a cannon launched missile, what do you expect when there's 30 years of technology between the tanks

>>34900859
T72Ms are export only models fitted with a gimped FCS, homogenous steel armour cast to look like the ceramic plates that even the T-72A was fitted with, 2A42's that failed the QC (and which was upgraded several times). Iraqi T-72s were equipped with 60s era soviet ammo and some Iraqi made ammo made from low grade steel and - I shit you not - concrete. They were also crewed by Iraqis.
The performance of Iraq's T-72Ms and home-brew copies ("Lion of Babylon") is not representative of even the first Soviet T72's. Some Iraqi T-72s did not have hydraulic turrets for fucks sakes.
>>34900762
Is wrong when he says Russian tanks shit on US/Western tanks.
In truth, both sides are capable of first hit penetration using modern ammo at combat ranges, and the deciding factor therefore would always be experience and training which favours professional armies in all cases.

>>34901143
this

File: doublesguy.jpg (12KB, 248x249px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 248x249px

>>34901143
Also I forgot to say that you can make similar comparisons to ((Abrams)) tanks in the hands of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other durkas. It's not fair to slam vehicles with modular armour systems and replaceable guns (which are more dependant on ammo for performance than the guns themselves anyway) because the monkeyed shit versions get rekt.
>>34900711
To answer OP's point, the earliest version with a 105mm would struggle to penetrate a T90/T72B4 at combat ranges, but any M256-equipped Abrams can kill a T-90 if we allow modern rounds. Modern tanks do have a better electronics suite than the M1A1 would have had so the Russian has the see-first-shoot-first advantage, however even then US training can be fairly assumed to be better than that of the Russian crew. Russia is reducing the numbers of conscripts and trying to shift towards a fully professional force, but the institution of the Russian land forces has a LOT of disciplinary, budgetary and training problems.

>>34901055
I think OP's post is talking in favor of the M1
>Would a 30yo US design beat current russian ones ?
Still a "what if nazy Germany had..." Tier post

Lul every war where American tanks went up against Russian tanks the Russian tanks got rekt , the fucking Israel army was using Shermans and still cucked and army 4 times as big

>>34900711
Baseline M1 with 105mm 1v1 with modern T72/90? T72/90 Win
Baseline M1's fully tied into modern battlenet/communications vs comparative force? M1's win.

>>34901323
OP here, I wasn't favoring any tank. I made this thread because I was curious.